ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:05 pm

There has been a lot of discussion in recent weeks (and in fits and starts over the past few years) about whether or not Boeing should re-establish a production line for the 757 and produce re-engined 757s to better compete with the A321LR as well as address airlines' needs vis a vis >4,000 mi range and take-off performance.

Out of curiosity, when the decision was made to shut down the 757 line had there been any Boeing studies about leveraging the 757 frame instead of the 737 frame to provide similar product offerings to what we now know as the 737-800/737-8MAX and the 737-900ER/737-9MAX? The implications of leveraging the 757 frame for these missions might have been to shrink the length of the frame, etc. but with the benefits of a taller/stronger landing gear, more powerful power plants, etc, I suspect that the 757 would have been a far more extensible platform.

I suspect the rationale was one of cost (757 production processes were more complex from what I've read) and perhaps weight. While these are no doubt valid points, it does seem that Boeing is in a very tough spot defending (and losing) market share to Airbus in the 200-seat class of narrow body aircraft.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:10 pm

The 757 was a heavier, longer range aircraft with a larger wing; scaling it down to 737 size would not have worked-it would have been very inefficient. The 757 was designed to carry a large payload out of relatively short runways (like LGA). This gave it great performance, and it was probably the best hot/high performer. But there is a reason that all airliners are not designed for that; it comes at the price of fuel efficiency. Also, the 757 requires more space at the gates than does the 737 or the A320.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
pjc747
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:50 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:01 pm

The 757 was designed to replace the 727 (which it did), by having its capacity, range, short field capability, and similar speed. The 757 met (and exceeded) the range, capacity, and short field capabilities of the 727, in a more efficient twinjet platform. The only deficiency was its speed, where the 727 could cruise up to Mach 0.9. The 737 served a different purpose than the 727 when it was launched; it was shorter range, shorter payload, slower, and pressurized to a lower differential. They were really two different applications, and the 727 was better suited to airlines at the time than the 737 Advanced was.

Using 1984 as a turning point, when the 727 exited production and the 737 Classics began production (they replaced the 727-100 and some -200s), and the 757 had just entered survice with Eastern in '83, we see this fact. There were 1,832 727s delivered, compared to 1,125 Boeing 737 Adv and 1,127 DC-9 series (including the MD-80 which began in '79). At that time, the DC-9 was a stiff competitor to the 737, and in many ways was superior for unimproved airports. In '84 the last 727 was delivered, and new 737 Classics first flew (the -300 in '84, -400 in '88, and -500 in '89). These models well outsold the 737 Adv and the 727-100 models they replaced.

Meanwhile, the 757 came along to replace the 727-200Adv (and add room for growth). In most ways, it was a far better airplane than the 727 which it replaced, and the 737 too. Its height allowed for engine nacelles not squished, it had more advanced avionics (as Southwest dumbed down the 737 design, as it has consistently up to today). From a pilot's perspective, the redesigned nose was a big leap. Not only was it more efficient, but the old 707-style nose used on other Boeing narrowbodies was very loud and cold, and the 757 is described as much more pleasant. The 757 had phenomenal range, while still operating efficiently on short routes, it could land shorter than anything else, and pilots loved it.

Unfortunately, I regard 9/11 as an event which likely squandered the future hopes of the 757. When it happened, air travel really took a hit, the American carriers were all going bankrupt, and the world airlines were stunting their growth. Had that terrible day never happened, I think a 757 NG may have come much sooner, for regardless what bean-counters and amateur aircraft specification statisticians say, the 757 is a far better airplane the the 737-900ER or A321. Maybe their ranges approach the 757, but its like driving an old Volkswagen, while it might get up to 60mph on the highway, you'd much rather have a car that'll do 100mph, so that 60 is no problem. The 757's range is far better than either potential replacements (JetBlue have to land a filled A321 in SLC at times to refuel for BOS-SFO), and new technology would undoubtedly increase it from now. It is a better pilot's plane, and it built to do the job and more, not adapted to barely do the job. And one advantage which a 757 design has, is that there will be no 737-1000 or A322, for the future likely holds a need for an increase capacity narrowbody, and the 757 platform can do it (-300?) but the others cannot.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4411
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:21 pm

Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Cheaper to operate and can do almost all routes that 757s do.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:05 pm

As I remember the original 737 was never envisioned as having the expansion capability which in fact happened. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Boeing stumbled into what would become the sweet spot for short and medium range commercial aviation. The Wiki entry covers a lot of the details. Airbus took note and designed its competitor to fill this huge niche, and being designed for that niche does it without the 'evolutionary' kludges of the 737 (some of which kludges are superior, others are not). But to answer the OP, the 737/320 are the smallest, lightest, most efficient, right sized planes for this huge niche.

[Edited 2015-03-15 08:13:04]

[Edited 2015-03-15 08:14:02]

[Edited 2015-03-15 08:17:07]
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:16 pm

Quoting pjc747 (Reply 2):
Had that terrible day never happened, I think a 757 NG may have come much sooner, for regardless what bean-counters and amateur aircraft specification statisticians say, the 757 is a far better airplane the the 737-900ER or A321. Maybe their ranges approach the 757, but its like driving an old Volkswagen, while it might get up to 60mph on the highway, you'd much rather have a car that'll do 100mph, so that 60 is no problem. The 757's range is far better than either potential replacements (JetBlue have to land a filled A321 in SLC at times to refuel for BOS-SFO), and new technology would undoubtedly increase it from now. It is a better pilot's plane, and it built to do the job and more, not adapted to barely do the job. And one advantage which a 757 design has, is that there will be no 737-1000 or A322, for the future likely holds a need for an increase capacity narrowbody, and the 757 platform can do it (-300?) but the others cannot.

Couldn't agree more. The Boeing bean counters are losing market share fast -- the 739ER/9-max are lackluster at best and have abysmal field performance. The 757 assembly line needs to be rebuilt.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:30 pm

Survival of the fittest, some like Darwins law.

I think the future we surely see a replacement.
 
SXDFC
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:07 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:43 pm

Quoting Ly204 (Thread starter):
Out of curiosity, when the decision was made to shut down the 757

Well back in 2005, Boeing knew that eventually Northwest would retire the DC-9, and that a certain website would need something to talk about. So they figured back then if they shut down the 757 line, we'd have something to talk about on a weekly basis. Some folks in DFW did not like this idea, so in 2013 they came up with a new livery and some sort of small hope that an MD-80 would be painted in it.

This topic has been discussed to death, with the 739ER, and the current and future generations of the 737 will fill in the gap just fine. IMHO the 757 replacement will be combined with the 737 successor.
 
User avatar
b777900
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:27 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):

how much more space does the 757 need, My personal opinion is the 757 is a beast and is great to fly than the 737700.
[i[b]]Prepare for Gate arrival, Gate 32
 
olle
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:25 pm

Today the 737 would had closed and the 757 been developed.

It has special more clearance and can get new engines easier and extension of fuselage.

The 737 offered advantage over 320 as long as the centre of the market was 737-7 and 738. Today its close to the 739.

Now it is the opposite and I believe that 320 will get a new wing and have a 322 in the future mid 2020.

Boeing need to make something very efficient replacement for beating that.
 
ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:16 pm

What was Boeing's rationale for destroying the 757 assembly equipment in the first place? I get that the orders dried up but it seems that had Boeing retained the assembly equipment, they could have mothballed the line and perhaps worked on a 737/757 replacement stopgap that better leveraged the 757s ground clearance, field performance, and range.

With all due respect to Boeing, this really seems like one of their less strategic decisions that will impact the company for the next decade in a profound way.
 
rta
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting Ly204 (Reply 11):

What was Boeing's rationale for destroying the 757 assembly equipment in the first place?

Basically what everyone already said.
When it was discontinued, they never expected they would need that type of plane again. The same reason why they don't have 717 assembly equipment either.
 
bluejuice
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:55 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:35 pm

Quoting Ly204 (Thread starter):
Out of curiosity, when the decision was made to shut down the 757 line had there been any Boeing studies about leveraging the 757 frame instead of the 737 frame to provide similar product offerings to what we now know as the 737-800/737-8MAX and the 737-900ER/737-9MAX? The implications of leveraging the 757 frame for these missions might have been to shrink the length of the frame, etc. but with the benefits of a taller/stronger landing gear, more powerful power plants, etc, I suspect that the 757 would have been a far more extensible platform.

Shrinks have not been successful due to the excess structure that cannot be removed leading to little or no cost savings. The 737-600 and A318 did not do well on the market. The 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

Quoting Ly204 (Reply 11):
What was Boeing's rationale for destroying the 757 assembly equipment in the first place? I get that the orders dried up but it seems that had Boeing retained the assembly equipment, they could have mothballed the line and perhaps worked on a 737/757 replacement stopgap that better leveraged the 757s ground clearance, field performance, and range.

With all due respect to Boeing, this really seems like one of their less strategic decisions that will impact the company for the next decade in a profound way.

Just letting the line sit in place while waiting for orders that may come in the future is like keeping a spare car in anticipation of a break down. Assembly lines generate revenue when product is being produced, not sitting idle. "Storing the assembly equipment" is not a trivial matter of crating up some bits and pieces then shoving it into a warehouse. While I have never mothballed tooling for aircraft parts, I have looked at decommissioning other equipment for future use and it is expensive. The manpower needed to disassemble and properly prepare precision equipment is costly. Finding a suitable location is put everything away indefinitely is also expensive. Beyond the equipment Boeing has, their subcontractors need to do the same for all the parts they contribute to the aircraft. I am fairly certain no partner will do this with no guarantee of future business.

While we all hate the "bean counters" who turn everything into a bottom line number, their job is try and ensure a fiscally responsible solution. I am fairly certain a good number of people sat down and crunched the numbers on potential future sales before coming to a decision to shut the line.
Not biased against vacuum flush.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11934
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:57 pm

I've never flown on a 757 and probably never will. I've never flown on a 737 either, although I expect to. What a plane "feels like" doesn't matter at all, unless you're buying the plane. If I was buying a plane, it would be a Falcon trijet. I read they feel like fighter jets to fly, and having three engines, I love it. I'm not buying so what I think doesn't matter.

The 757 is simply too much plane for a single aisle airplane. That's due to its origins with the 767 of course.

Quoting olle (Reply 10):
Today the 737 would had closed and the 757 been developed.

That's wild speculation. The 737 line has been selling well all along. The 757NG might have happened without 9/11, but that wouldn't mean the 737 would be mothballed. To make a 757 competitive on shorter ranges would be an immense task that in my opinion makes no sense, so the 737 has always been safe in its core market. Then we go back to the fact that a 757NG has no market worth talking about.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
b777900
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:27 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:08 pm

How much more room do you need for gate space from a 757 to 737?
[i[b]]Prepare for Gate arrival, Gate 32
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:04 pm

I know many here love the 757, and I too had some nice flights on it, the -200 very loud interior, the -300 better. But let us face it - it was a moderate success. To replace the 727, it was too big and too heavy - it was built under expectation of a giant growth that never came. The true 727 replacement then was the A320 first, and the 738 later.
When fuel got expensive and ticket prices dropped, the 757 only made sense in a niche market at its upper range limit - it could go further than the 738 and the A320. The rest of the applications broke away rather quick. In 1986 I frew from London to Newcastle on a BA 757 - a few years later the 757 was withdrawn from such short hops.

Ending the 737 in favor of the 757 would habe been suicide - starting from such a heavy frame, shrinking in size and range would have given an aircraft without any market chance, blown away by any Mad Dog.

Boeing ended the 757 production for a simple reason - they had no more orders, and no orders in sight.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9264
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:21 am

Quoting Ly204 (Reply 11):
What was Boeing's rationale for destroying the 757 assembly equipment in the first place? I get that the orders dried up but it seems that had Boeing retained the assembly equipment, they could have mothballed the line and perhaps worked on a 737/757 replacement stopgap that better leveraged the 757s ground clearance, field performance, and range.

Boeing re-purposed the 757 assembly line into an additional 737NG line. The opportunity cost of preserving the 757 tooling for an undefined second life at an undefined future time versus making aircraft that people want would have been stupefying.

Ditching the 717 and 757 to focus on the 737NG was a resounding success. Boeing will make more 737NG in the next two years than they build 757 in twenty.

Quoting bluejuice (Reply 13):
I have looked at decommissioning other equipment for future use and it is expensive. The manpower needed to disassemble and properly prepare precision equipment is costly. Finding a suitable location is put everything away indefinitely is also expensive. Beyond the equipment Boeing has, their subcontractors need to do the same for all the parts they contribute to the aircraft. I am fairly certain no partner will do this with no guarantee of future business.

We also can't forget the tribal knowledge in production engineering, manufacturing, and assembly that never makes it into specifications. Even the best manufacturers struggle to document all the little tricks, judgement calls, and experiences that go into a reliable operation.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
pjc747
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:50 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:36 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20):
Boeing will make more 737NG in the next two years than they build 757 in twenty.

They can't build 1,200 planes in two years
 
afcjets
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:57 am

I know many here will disagree with me but I think part of the reason the 737 is going on fifty going on eternity is because the fastest growing airline which became the largest airline (in terms of passengers) and consistently most successful and stable airline made it clear decades ago during their explosive growth they will only fly one aircraft type.



[Edited 2015-03-15 18:59:33]
 
User avatar
b777900
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:27 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:14 am

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 22):

737 has had more crashes than the 757 hasn't it?
[i[b]]Prepare for Gate arrival, Gate 32
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:35 am

Airlines bought tens of thousands 737s and not 757s. The market spoke and Boeing followed. If airlines bought as many 757s as 737s the I bet they would have continued selling it longer. It really is that simple.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10061
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:08 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 20):

The B757 is useful in certain markets like DEN, TATL etc where the proposed A321LR will also be useful. The problem IMHO with the B757 was so many airlines ordered and then not many more were needed for a while as the market had what was needed, which caused Boeing to end B757 production. Now that many airlines B757 fleets are coming up for replacement, Boeing is proposing the B739ER while Airbus is proposing the A321/NEO/LR versions. All of these models don't 100% replace the market the B757 was built for. The A321LR is the only model that will come close in terms of passenger count and range while lacking on freight due to the extra fuel tanks.

If Boeing had kept the B757 line going since it was combined with the B737 line then airlines would have a real B757 replacement option with maybe newer engines
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
737tdi
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:05 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:33 am

Quoting b777900 (Reply 19):
737 has had more crashes than the 757 hasn't it?

I don't know the answer but it would not surprise me with almost 5 times the number of aircraft built and the number that were sold to less then reputable airlines and what should have been retired aircraft. JMO.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8137
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:47 am

I think what ended the production of the 757 was the fact that once the 737-800 and A320 planes started to exceed 3,100 nm in range (thanks to more fuel capacity and the introduction of fuel-saving winglets), many airlines replaced the 752 on medium-range routes with the 738 and A320. Indeed, with new engines now in development, the 737 MAX9 and A321neo have become 752 replacements on routes up to 3,000 nm in range.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:34 am

Quoting pjc747 (Reply 17):
They can't build 1,200 planes in two years

They are getting close. 600 per year is 50 per month, and they are planning to go to 52 in 2018.

Quoting b777900 (Reply 8):
My personal opinion is the 757 is a beast and is great to fly than the 737700.

The 757 is my favorite airliner to fly in.

Quoting b777900 (Reply 19):
737 has had more crashes than the 757 hasn't it?

There are also a lot more of them, and the 737 flies shorter missions which are more prone to accidents. Most crashes are on landing. Also, many more airlines with less than stellar reputations fly the 737 than the 757. If you take the accident rate per departure among first rate airlines the 737 has a very good record. However, the 757 has a stellar record; it has had 6 crashes, two as a result of 9/11 and one a midair collision. So there have only been 3 that can in any way be blamed on the aircraft.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12586
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:18 am

Quoting pjc747 (Reply 2):
for regardless what bean-counters and amateur aircraft specification statisticians say, the 757 is a far better airplane the the 737-900ER or A321.

You were doing well, until this point. But you made a common error:

The 752 is indeed more CAPABLE than the 739ER/A321... but it's certainly not "better" in the sense that it can make the most money for airlines in the greatest number of situations. It can't. They can.

For most scenarios, their efficiency is more profitable to airlines than its performance... simple as that.
No matter how much you don't like it, no matter how much you wish it wasn't so, that's just a simple fact.

It sucks, but it's true. The orders reflect it as such.

[Edited 2015-03-15 23:42:15]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17666
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Cheaper to operate and can do almost all routes that 757s do.

   Stick a fork in it. Thread's over.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:40 am

Quoting pjc747 (Reply 2):
Maybe their ranges approach the 757, but its like driving an old Volkswagen, while it might get up to 60mph on the highway, you'd much rather have a car that'll do 100mph, so that 60 is no problem.

Thank you for a very nice post with a lot of information!

But I wanted to pick on on thing, the above. I see it often as a basis of various a.net people's opinions. It feels a bit like must-have-4wd-because-i-might-need-it-someday -argument. And then you drive in a place where the car never gets even rained on, never mention leaving the pavement  

I think the nature of the business is that you *optimise* your product so that you get to do what you do daily at the minimal cost. Carrying around horsepower to go 40mph more just in case does not fit into that equation 
Quoting Aesma (Reply 13):
I've never flown on a 737 either, although I expect to.

Now you really ticked my curiosity! How did you manage not to fly on 737s?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 25):
The 752 is indeed more CAPABLE than the 739ER/A321... but it's certainly not "better" in the sense that it can make the most money for airlines in the greatest number of situations. It can't. They can.

  
 
Passedv1
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:27 am

I think it was the ready customer that Boeing had in SWA. When Boeing was comparing the 757-NG to the 737-NG (if that in fact happened) the analysis for the 737-NG has a guaranteed large order. The 757 had no such obvious customer.

I think from a pilot point of view, I obviously would have liked to have seen the death of the 737 instead...unfortunately, accountants buy airplanes.

At the end of the day, Boeing is going to lose out on this market segment because they have chosen not to enter it (or reenter it). Just like the 100 seat and the 800 seat markets are not going to go to Boeing either.
 
737tdi
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:05 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:44 am

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 28):
I think it was the ready customer that Boeing had in SWA.

I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct. It has been said earlier in this thread but yours was the easiest to quote. If not for SWA/WN the 737 might have gone away?? Big if. 600 airplanes is a lot of profit, that is what WN has purchased, and they have many more on order. Can you ignore this? I think not. My question. Has WN driven Boeing into a corner, they did not develop any other aircraft between the 737NG/Max and the 767. Mistake? I think so. Boeing has one basic design in the single aisle and it is 50 years old. Bad move IMO. I don't have an answer and I suspect neither does Boeing. The 737MAX is merely a stop gap and I think you will see them come up with a 737/757 amalgam. Tall gear to assuage the engines, long fuselage to provide more passengers and the same basic wing as the 757 but it will be composite. The fuselage will be composite as well. Just my predictions. If they call it a 737=1000 WN will say Okie Dokie.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12586
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:58 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 29):
If they call it a 737=1000 WN will say Okie Dokie.

....but not before the FAA/DOT has a chance to say "No can do, buckaroo."

There's no way in hades that they would allow such a thing to just be called a 737 and skirt on by. Re-certification city.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:26 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 24):
So there have only been 3 that can in any way be blamed on the aircraft.

And even then, not really. AA965 was crew error, and was a CFIT. The Birgenair crash was attributed to improper storage of the aircraft resulting in the pitot tubes & stat ports not being covered, & AeroPeru 603 was a similiar, if somewhat opposite event where static covers and tape were not removed.

I'm actually not sure if there's anything attributable to the 757's actual design...

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 29):
The 737MAX is merely a stop gap and I think you will see them come up with a 737/757 amalgam. Tall gear to assuage the engines, long fuselage to provide more passengers and the same basic wing as the 757 but it will be composite. The fuselage will be composite as well. Just my predictions. If they call it a 737=1000 WN will say Okie Dokie.

Maybe. From what I've seen the operational benefits of Composite const really don't scale down all that well, though the MX issues & extra costs remain. I do agree that it will be a one-stop-shop covering at least the seat range from 738 - 753. We'll see...
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:58 am

the 757 is a huge aircraft compared to the 737, and can only do little more than the W39. the 321 is even a way smaller aircraft than the 757, although offering nearly the same capabilities in terms of range and payload 321NEOLR, or even the classic 321, but they are way cheaper to operate. to put it in other words looking at an approximate per hour fuel burn:

T20: 3.100 kg/h (PS90, the RR uses 200kg less)
757: 3.000 kg/h
321: 2.500 kg/h
W39: 2.400 kg/h
313: 5.300 kg/h

figures are from different operators and what they use as per hour burn off for calculation, may vary with other airlines, but comes rather close.

so only looking at the fuel burn, you see why a 313 isn't used any more, and why the 757 is being phased out. and for a mainline airline, it certainly depends how the cargo loads are on the routings, but if you can't fill up a 757 to it's max, you'll always choose a 321 over the 757, and a 321 over a W39 (for other reasons).

to put it in other words: to redesign the 757 to be competitive, it would need new engines and a new wing, a bit of weight reduction to the gear (lower to the ground), and a few other things easing ops. but then you will end up with a W39 in the end, so that's your answer...
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
 
Passedv1
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 30):
....but not before the FAA/DOT has a chance to say "No can do, buckaroo."

There's no way in hades that they would allow such a thing to just be called a 737 and skirt on by. Re-certification city.

I would like to think that were true but then I look at a 737-100 and compare it to a 737-MAX, and then I highly doubt that there is any limiting principal on what is to be considered a "new type". If Boeing wants the replacement to be a "737", then I, perhaps because I am cynical by nature, believe that it will be a 737.

Lengthen the gear (just like going from a classic to the NG-just position the cockpit to keep the site picture the same), increase the MTOW (737-100 was 100k jet, Max will be close to a 200k jet), build a new wing (just like they did for the NG), increase the range (737-100 could barely make it to the mid-west from the west coast, now ETOPS 180 on the NG), improve systems but make them invisible to the pilot, Many of the switches on the 737-100 and the NG are operated the same but do different things. Then take a look at the MAX.

Fly by wire spoilers, new engines, new navigation systems, new brakes and bleed systems could all be made with no/little operational differences to the flight crew, which at the end of the day, is what the new type/old type certification question is all about. Fly by wire flight controls on a new type could be programmed to emulate the flight characteristics of a "737".

Anyway, I have not held back about not liking the 737 from a pilot point of view in previous posts, however, I would not underestimate Boeing's ability to design a jet that gets most if not all of the efficiencies of a new design, and yet still be able to convince the FAA that it is still a "737".

[Edited 2015-03-16 03:40:01]

[Edited 2015-03-16 03:44:11]
 
jfk777
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:57 am

The 757 is like a Porsche 911, a 737 is like a BMW 335. The 757 does what it does very well and even found a niche no one saw coming in flying the Atlantic. AS the 737 became the -800 and -900ER the 737 was doing what the 757 does at cheaper operating costs. The 738 and 739 can do Hawaii and Trancontinental flights just like a 757. Anything bigger then a 757 at Boeing brings you to a 767. The 757 became to inefficient.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:21 am

The wing: the 757 wing is a expansive piece of real estate compared to the 737 wing, 45% higher wing area in fact.This is dictated by short-field performance and long-range requirements. That makes for a heavier wing, heavier wing box, heavier wing-to-fuselage junctions, heavier stabilier, etc.

Add to that the fact that the 757 wing is late 1970's technology and so would have been heavier even it were the size of the 737NG's.

In a nutshell, the 757 has an irreducible weight disadvantage vis-à-vis the 737NG. To make a more competitive 757 you would need a better, lighter wing in which case it's easier to just start from scratch and call it NSA.


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:27 am

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):
oeing ended the 757 production for a simple reason - they had no more orders, and no orders in sight.

till doesn't explain why Boeing tore up the entire production line.
 
ly204
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting Faro (Reply 35):
t were the size of the 737NG's.

In a nutshell, the 757 has an irreducible weight disadvantage vis-à-vis the 737NG. To make a more competitive 757 you would need a better, lighter wing in which case it's easier to just start from scratch and call it NSA.


Faro

Many aircraft families have introduced brand new wings in subsequent generations -- the 737 and 747 in particular are prime examples of this. A lighter wing and vertical stabilizer with the use of composites would be a far cheaper development effort than a completely new aircraft.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting Ly204 (Reply 37):
Quoting Faro (Reply 35):
t were the size of the 737NG's.

In a nutshell, the 757 has an irreducible weight disadvantage vis-à-vis the 737NG. To make a more competitive 757 you would need a better, lighter wing in which case it's easier to just start from scratch and call it NSA.


Faro

Many aircraft families have introduced brand new wings in subsequent generations -- the 737 and 747 in particular are prime examples of this. A lighter wing and vertical stabilizer with the use of composites would be a far cheaper development effort than a completely new aircraft.

You are right; simply, the fact that this did not happen with the 757 is significant.

It means that even with a new wing, Boeing didn't see the required demand to commit to the upgrade. Otherwise said, the improvement afforded by a 757 re-wing was deemed much less attractive -ie less efficient- than the 737NG re-wing for which demand was more than manifest.


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2247
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:58 pm

The 757 would have been even more overpowered and inefficient if it was shortened. But interestingly, Boeing considered putting the 757 nose and cockpit on the 737NG. I believe there was a thread about that here on Airliners.net. The reason they didn't, was because it would need new certifications and a new type rating. Too many changes.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:21 pm

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 36):
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):
oeing ended the 757 production for a simple reason - they had no more orders, and no orders in sight.

till doesn't explain why Boeing tore up the entire production line.

Of all the reasons for cancelling an aircraft programme, no orders and none in sight must be the easiest to make a call on. With the follow on decision to destroy the tooling being just as easy. Keeping the tooling is not zero cost, everything from forge dies to access platforms in the assembly hall need to be kept in the correct conditions. Some suppliers will probably charge storage.
The other expense is keeping the design up to date, the 757 design was already more than 25 years old at the time, regulatory requirements keep changing and components would be becoming obsolete, do you keep spending money validating replacements on something that isn't earning any money ?
 
eaglepower83
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:54 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:34 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
We also can't forget the tribal knowledge in production engineering, manufacturing, and assembly that never makes it into specifications. Even the best manufacturers struggle to document all the little tricks, judgement calls, and experiences that go into a reliable operation.

You're exactly right on that.
And that's why the Aviation industry left a particularly bad taste in my mouth.
They resisted hiring anyone for years, until they had this glut of older retirees.
They scrambled to bring in young, fresh talent. But that young talent doesn't have the tribal knowledge yet.
There needs to be a healthy overlap of new and old. That's not always the case.
On top of that, so much of those valuable engineering resources are simply seen as "engineering energy" that can be outsourced anywhere, anytime.
I cannot stress how annoying, stupid and short-sighted that is. It makes tasks take twice as long, and twice as expensive when all the veteran engineers turn into "Checkers" for the outsourced energy, often-times re-doing the work at twice the price.
Silly.
And this isn't just an Aviation thing, I know.
This is where "Spreadsheet Management" really comes up short.   
 
pjc747
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:50 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:02 pm

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 32):
the 757 is a huge aircraft compared to the 737, and can only do little more than the W39. the 321 is even a way smaller aircraft than the 757, although offering nearly the same capabilities in terms of range and payload 321NEOLR, or even the classic 321, but they are way cheaper to operate. to put it in other words looking at an approximate per hour fuel burn:

Thinking of it this way, what came before the 757? Obviously it was a direct 727-200 replacement, but it also served to replace the Douglas DC-8 and the 707, both of which are larger than the 737 or A321.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:10 pm

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 41):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
We also can't forget the tribal knowledge in production engineering, manufacturing, and assembly that never makes it into specifications. Even the best manufacturers struggle to document all the little tricks, judgement calls, and experiences that go into a reliable operation.

You're exactly right on that.
And that's why the Aviation industry left a particularly bad taste in my mouth.
They resisted hiring anyone for years, until they had this glut of older retirees.
They scrambled to bring in young, fresh talent. But that young talent doesn't have the tribal knowledge yet.
There needs to be a healthy overlap of new and old. That's not always the case.
On top of that, so much of those valuable engineering resources are simply seen as "engineering energy" that can be outsourced anywhere, anytime.
I cannot stress how annoying, stupid and short-sighted that is. It makes tasks take twice as long, and twice as expensive when all the veteran engineers turn into "Checkers" for the outsourced energy, often-times re-doing the work at twice the price.
Silly.
And this isn't just an Aviation thing, I know.
This is where "Spreadsheet Management" really comes up short.   

Having worked in manufacturing "tribal knowledge" as you refer to it is a complete pain in the rear, it is the direct result of assemblers knowing better than the production engineers and declining to pass on the benefit of their experience. The result is a manufacturing process that is incorrectly documented. In order to conform to all the manufacturing protocols that manufacturers sign up to the system is crystal clear, if you cannot work to the documented procedure, you inform the production engineers and they alter the procedure. If you think you know a better way, once again you seek their permission, if its feasible you get a pat on the back, on the other hand the procedure you don't like may have been for a very good reason.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12586
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:24 pm

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 33):
I would like to think that were true but then I look at a 737-100 and compare it to a 737-MAX, and then I highly doubt that there is any limiting principal on what is to be considered a "new type". If Boeing wants the replacement to be a "737", then I, perhaps because I am cynical by nature, believe that it will be a 737.

Disagree. The wing and the gear would be the (comparatively) easiest things to get approved...

...a CFRP body? Not a chance.



Quoting bobnwa (Reply 36):
till doesn't explain why Boeing tore up the entire production line.

Huh?

I don't understand what you're getting at here-- what better reason to dismantle a production line, than no outstanding orders, and no expectant orders on the horizon???
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
pjc747
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:50 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:06 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 44):
...a CFRP body? Not a chance.

You never know. Remember that the 737-100 through -500 were all thinner skinned planes with a lower pressurization differential. The NG went to a new gauge of aluminum and higher pressurization, which in many ways completely changes the structure and stresses on the fuselage. If they did a carbon fiber body, doing it ala A350 with panels on frames would be more viable for this certification requirement than the spun fibers ala 787.
 
DDR
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15):

I always thought the 757 wasn't a real replacement for the 727. It was just too much plane. But having flown on several, I have to say that as a passenger, I love it.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:35 pm

Quoting DDR (Reply 46):
I always thought the 757 wasn't a real replacement for the 727. It was just too much plane. But having flown on several, I have to say that as a passenger, I love it.

In truth, it was mostly only cargo carriers that actually replaced their 727s with 757s. Most passenger airlines replaced their 727s with either A320s or 738s.
Yes, I wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD shirts. I am a real man.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:05 am

Quoting DDR (Reply 46):
I always thought the 757 wasn't a real replacement for the 727. It was just too much plane. But having flown on several, I have to say that as a passenger, I love it.

Wiki sez:

Quote:

By 1978, development studies focused on two variants: a 7N7-100 with seating for 160, and a 7N7-200 with room for over 180 seats.[8] New features included a redesigned wing, under-wing engines, and lighter materials, while the forward fuselage, cockpit layout, and T-tail configuration were retained from the 727.[11] Boeing planned for the aircraft to offer the lowest fuel burn per passenger-kilometer of any narrow-body airliner.[12] On August 31, 1978, Eastern Air Lines and British Airways became the first carriers to publicly commit to the 7N7 when they announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft for the 7N7-200 version.[8][12] These orders were signed in March 1979, when Boeing officially designated the aircraft as the 757.[8] The shorter 757-100 did not receive any orders and was dropped; 737s later fulfilled its envisioned role.[13]

So indeed Boeing aimed a bit bigger than 727. As we see, they thought they might end up with the 160 seater out of the same design, but as above, shrinks rarely turn out well.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Why Did The 737 Outlive The 757?

Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:55 am

Quoting Ly204 (Reply 37):
Many aircraft families have introduced brand new wings in subsequent generations -- the 737 and 747 in particular are prime examples of this. A lighter wing and vertical stabilizer with the use of composites would be a far cheaper development effort than a completely new aircraft.

So why not put that brand new wing under a 739 fuselage?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos